The Tasks of the Proletariat in Our Revolution

(Draft Platform for the Proletarian Party)

THE SITUATION

WITHIN THE SOCIALIST INTERNATIONAL

16.Theinternational obligations of the working class of Russia
are precisely now coming to the forefront with particular
force.

Onlylazy people do not swear by internationalism these
days. Even the chauvinist defencists, even Plekhanov and
Potresov, even Kerensky, call themselves internationalists. It
becomes the duty of the proletarian party all the more urgently,
therefore, to clearly, precisely and definitely counterpoise
internationalism in deed to internationalism in word.

Mereappeals to the workers of all countries, empty assurances
of devotion to internationalism, direct or indirect attempts to
fix a “sequence” of action by the revolutionary proletariat in
the various belligerent countries, laborious efforts to conclude
“agreements” between the socialists of the belligerent countrieson the questionof the revolutionary struggle, all the
fuss over the summoning of socialist congressesfor the
purposeof a peace campaign, etc., etc.—nomatter how
sincere the authors of such ideas, attempts, and plans may be –
amount, as far as theirobjectivesignificance is
concerned, to mere phrase-mongering, andat bestare
innocent and pious wishes, fit only to conceal thedeceptionof the people by the chauvinists. TheFrenchsocial-chauvinists, who are the most adroit and
accomplished in methods of parliamentary hocus-pocus, have long
since broken the record for ranting and resonant pacifist and
internationalist phrasescoupled withthe incredibly
brazen betrayal of socialism and the International, the
acceptance of posts in governments which conduct the imperialist
war, the voting of creditsor loans(as Chkheidze,
Skobelev, Tsereteli and Steklov have been doing recently in
Russia), opposition to the revolutionary struggle intheir
own country, etc., etc.

Goodpeople often forget the brutal and savage setting of the
imperialist world war. This setting does not tolerate phrases,
and mocks at innocent and pious wishes.

Thereis one, and only one, kind of real internationalism, and
that is—working whole-heartedly for the development of the
revolutionary movement and the revolutionary struggle inone’s owncountry, and supporting (by propaganda,
sympathy, and material aid)this struggle, this, andonly this,line, ineverycountry without
exception.

Everythingelse is deception andManilovism.[1]

Duringthe two odd years of the war the international socialist
and working-class movement ineverycountry has evolved
three trends. Whoever ignoresrealityand refuses to
recognise the existence of these three trends, to analyse them,
to fight consistently for the trend that is really
internationalist, is doomed to impotence, helplessness and
errors.

Thethree trends are:

1).Thesocial-chauvinists,
i.e., socialists in word and chauvinists in deed. People who
support “defence of the fatherland” in an imperialist war (and
above all in the present imperialist war).

Thesepeople are ourclassenemies. They have gone over
to the bourgeoisie.

Theyare the majority of the official leaders of the official
Social-Democratic parties inallcountries—Plekhanovand Co. in Russia, the Scheidemanns in Germany, Renaudel, Guesde
and Sembat in France, Bissolati and Co. in Italy, Hyndman, theFabians[2]and the Labourites (the leaders of the “Labour Party”) in
Britain, Branting and Co. in Sweden, Troelstra and his party in
Holland, Stauning and his party in Denmark, Victor Berger and
the other “defenders of the fatherland” in America, and so
forth.

2)Thesecond trend, known as the “Centre”, consists of people
who vacillate between the social-chauvinists and the true
internationalists.

The“Centre” all vow and declare that they are Marxists and
internationalists, that they are for peace, for bringing every
kind of “pressure” to bear upon the governments, for “demanding”
in every way that their own government should “ascertain the
will of the people for peace”, that they are for all sorts of
peace campaigns, for peace without annexations, etc., etc. –and for peace with the social-chauvinists. The “Centre”
is for “unity”, the Centre is opposed to a split.

The“Centre” is a realm of honeyed petty-bourgeois phrases, of
internationalism in word and cowardly opportunism and fawning on
the social-chauvinists in deed.

Thecrux of the matter is that the “Centre” is not convinced of
the necessity for a revolution against one’s own government; it
does not preach revolution; it does not carry on a whole-hearted
revolutionary struggle; and in order to evade such a struggle it
resorts to the tritest ultra-“Marxist”-soundingexcuses.

Thesocial-chauvinists are ourclass enemies,they arebourgeoiswithin the working-class movement. They
represent a stratum, or groups, or sections of the working class
whichobjectivelyhave been bribed by the bourgeoisie
(by better wages, positions of honour, etc.), and which helptheir ownbourgeoisie to plunder and oppress small and
weak peoples and to fightforthe division of the
capitalist spoils.

The“Centre” consists of routine-worshippers, eroded by the
canker of legality, corrupted by the parliamentary atmosphere,
etc., bureaucrats accustomed to snug positions and soft
jobs. Historically and economically speaking, they are not aseparatestratum but represent only atransitionfrom a past phase of the working-class
movement—the phasebetween 1871 and 1914, which gave much
that is valuable to the proletariat, particularly in the
indispensable art of slow, sustained and systematic
organisational work on a large and very large scale—to a newphasethat becameobjectivelyessential with
the outbreak of the first imperialist world war, which
inauguratedthe era of social revolution.

Thechief leader and spokesman of the “Centre” isKarl
Kautsky, the most outstanding authority in the Second
International (1889–1914), since August 1914 a model of utter
bankruptcy as a Marxist, the embodiment of unheard-of
spinelessness, and the most wretched vacillations and
betrayals. This “Centrist” trend includes Kautsky, Haase,
Ledebour and the so-calledworkers’
or labour
group[3]in the Reichstag; in France it includes
Longuet, Pressemane and the so-calledminorities[4](Mensheviks) in general; in Britain, Philip Snowden, Ramsay
MacDonald and many other leaders of theIndependent
Labour
Party,[5]and some leaders of theBritish
Socialist
Party[6]; Morris Hillquit and many others in the
United States; Turati, Tréves, Modigliani and others in
Italy; Robert Grimm and others in Switzerland; Victor Adler and
Co. in Austria; the party of the Organising Committee, Axelrod,
Martov, Chkheidze, Tsereteli and others in Russia, and so
forth.

Naturally,at times individuals unconsciously drift from the
social-chauvinist to the “Centrist” position, and vice
versa. Every Marxist knows that classes are distinct, even
though individuals may move freely from one class to another;
similarly,trendsin political life are distinct in
spite of the fact that individuals may change freely from one
trend to another, and in spite of all attempts and efforts toamalgamatetrends.

3)Thethird trend, that of the true internationalists, is best
represented by the “Zimmerwald
Left”.[7](We reprint as a supplement its manifesto of
September 1915, to enable the reader to learn of the
inception of this trend at first hand.)

Itsdistinctive feature is its complete break with both
social-chauvinism and “Centrism”, and its gallant revolutionary
struggle againstits ownimperialist government andits ownimperialist bourgeoisie. Its principle is: “Our
chief enemy is at home.” It wages a ruthless struggle againsthoneyed social-pacifist phrases (a social-pacifist is a
socialist in word and a bourgeois pacifist in deed; bourgeois
pacifists dream of an everlasting peacewithoutthe
overthrow of the yoke and domination of capital) and against allsubterfugesemployed to deny the possibility, or the
appropriateness, or the timeliness of a proletarian
revolutionary struggle and of a proletarian socialist revolutionin connectionwith the present war.

Themost outstanding representative of this trend in Germany is
theSpartacusgroup or theInternationalegroup,[8]to whichKarl
Liebknechtbelongs. Karl Liebknecht is a most celebrated
representative of this trend and of thenew,and
genuine, proletarian International.

KarlLiebknecht called upon the workers and soldiers of Germany
toturn their gunsagainsttheir owngovernment. Karl Liebknecht did that openly from the rostrum of
parliament (the Reichstag). He then went to a demonstration in
Potsdamer Platz, one of the largest public squares in Berlin,
with illegally printed leaflets proclaiming the slogan “Down
with the Government!” He was arrested and sentenced tohard
labour. He is now serving his term in a German convict
prison, likehundreds,if not thousands, of othertrueGerman socialists who have been imprisoned for
their anti-war activities.

KarlLiebknecht in his speeches and letters mercilessly attacked
not onlyhis ownPlekhanovs and Potresovs
(Scheidemanns, Legiens, Davids and Co.),but also his own
Centrists,his own Chkheidzes and Tseretelis (Kautsky,
Haase, Ledebour and Co.).

KarlLiebknecht and his friend Otto Rühle, two out of one
hundred and ten deputies, violated discipline, destroyed the
“unity” with the “Centre” and the chauvinists, andwent
against all of them. Liebknechtalonerepresents
socialism, the proletarian cause, the proletarian
revolution. All the rest of German Social-Democracy, to quote
the apt words of Rosa Luxemburg (also a member and one of the
leaders of the Spartacus group), is a “stinking corpse”.

Anothergroup of true internationalists in Germany is that of
the Bremen paperArbeiterpolitik.

Closestto the internationalists in deed are: in France, Loriot
and his friends (Bourderon and Merrheim haveslid down to
social-pacifism), as well as the Frenchman Henri Guilbeaux, who
publishes in Geneva the journalDemain; in Britain,
the newspaperThe Trade Unionist,and some of the
members of the British Socialist Party and of the Independent
Labour Party (for instance, Russel Williams, who openly called
for a break with the leaders who havebetrayedsocialism), the Scottish socialist school teacherMacLean,who was sentenced tohard labourby
the bourgeois government of Britain for his revolutionary fight
against the war, and hundreds of British socialists who are in
jail for the same offence. They, and they alone, are
internationalists in deed. In the United States, theSocialist
Labour
Party[9]and those within the opportunistSocialist
Party[10]who in January 1917 began publication of the paper,The Internationalist; in Holland, the Party of the
“Tribunists”[11]which publishes the paperDe Tribune(Pannekoek, Herman
Gorter, Wijnkoop, and Henriette Roland-Holst, who, although
Centrist at Zimmerwald, has now joined our ranks); in Sweden,
the Party of the Young, or the
Left[Swedish
Social Democrats],[12]led by Lindhagen, Ture Nerman, Carleson,
Strölm and Z. Hömlglund, who at Zimmerwald was
personally active in the organisation of the “Zimmerwald Left”,
and who is now in prison for his revolutionary fight against the
war; in Denmark, Trier and his friends who have left the now
purelybourgeois“Social-Democratic” Party of Denmark,
headed by theMinisterStauning; in Bulgaria, the
“Tesnyaki”[13];
in Italy, the nearest are Constantino Lazzari, secretary of the
party, and Serrati, editor of the central organ,Avanti![14];
in Poland, Radek, Hanecki and other leaders of the
Social-Democrats united under the “Regional Executive”, and Rosa
Luxemburg, Tyszka and other leaders of the Social-Democrats
united under the “Chief Executive”[executive bodies of the Social democrats in the
Kingdom of Poland and Lithuana][15]; in Switzerland, those of
the Left who drew up the argument for the “referendum” (January
1917) in order to fight the social-chauvinists and the “Centre”
intheir owncountry and who at the Zurich Cantonal
Socialist Convention, held at Töss on February 11, 1917,
moved a consistently revolutionary resolution against the war;
in Austria, the young Left-wing friends of Friedrich Adler, who
acted partly through the Karl Marx Club in Vienna, now closed by
the arch-reactionary Austrian Government, which is ruiningAdler’s life for his heroic though ill-considered shooting at a
minister, and so on.

Itis not a question of shades of opinion, which certainly exist
even among the Lefts. It is a question oftrend. The
thing is that it is not easy to be an internationalist in deed
during a terrible imperialist war. Such people are few; but it
is on such peoplealonethat the future of socialism depends; theyalonearethe leaders of the people,and not
their corrupters.

Thedistinction between the reformists and the revolutionaries,
among the Social-Democrats, and socialists generally, was
objectively bound to undergo a change under the conditions of
the imperialist war. Those who confine themselves to “demanding”
that the bourgeois governments should conclude peace or
“ascertain the will of the peoples for peace”, etc., areactuallyslipping into reforms. For, objectively,the problem of the warcan be solved only in arevolutionary way.

Thereis no possibility of this war ending in a democratic,
non-coercive peace or of the people being relieved of the burden
ofbillionspaid in interest to the capitalists, who
have made fortunes out of the war, except through a revolution
of the proletariat.

Themost varied reforms can and must be demanded of the
bourgeois governments, but one cannot, without sinking to
Manilovism and reformism, demand that people and classes
entangled by the thousands of threads of imperialist capital
shouldtearthose threads. And unless they are torn,
all talk of a war against war is idle and deceitful prattle.

The“Kautskyites”, the “Centre”, are revolutionaries in word and
reformists in deed, they are internationalists in word and
accomplices of the social-chauvinists in deed.

[1][PLACEHOLDER.]

[2][PLACEHOLDER.]

[3][PLACEHOLDER.]

[4][PLACEHOLDER.]

[5][PLACEHOLDER.]

[6][PLACEHOLDER.]

[7][PLACEHOLDER.]

[8][PLACEHOLDER.]

[9][PLACEHOLDER.]

[10][PLACEHOLDER.]

[11][PLACEHOLDER.]

[12][PLACEHOLDER.]

[13][PLACEHOLDER.]

[14][PLACEHOLDER.]

[15][PLACEHOLDER.]